[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

The EBU as part of the advice in its new White book says that "wild or gambling action" is generally intended.  It is all part of controlling the double shot, not penalising poor players for being poor players.  Sure, if Meckwell was E/W they would get no sympathy from me, but I think posters in this thread are unduly harsh on some poor pair that had no idea what to do, and in practice did what all poor players do: the moment their opponents have shown a "strong" hand, they pass throughout.

Very well, but Law 12C1b reads:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

Therefore, you should not solely be concerned with wild or gambling action. If passing 4♥ is a serious error, E/W lose compensation whether they are good or poor.

[bluejak]

I believe that a 'serious error' is serious for the class of player involved, and I think that to deny redress for a poor player should be very rare. I think it is mainly to cover revokes and similar. Not giving redress because they do not know what to do when opponents open a 'strong' opening is not a serious error: it is being not a very good bridge player.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

I believe that a 'serious error' is serious for the class of player involved, and I think that to deny redress for a poor player should be very rare.  I think it is mainly to cover revokes and similar.  Not giving redress because they do not know what to do when opponents open a 'strong' opening is not a serious error: it is being not a very good bridge player.

It is a matter of fact that poor players make more serious errors than good players. If we are to rule by the wording of Law 12C1b, it will therefore hit poor players more often than good players.

Note that Law 12C1b does not indicate that the concept of error should be relative to the class of player involved. If the lawmakers would have us consider the level of the player when applying Law 12C1b, perhaps they might have used a wording such as the one in the footnote to Laws 70-71.

[bluejak]

EBU White book 2010 said:

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.  This also applies to potentially wild or gambling actions.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’
• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

[Sadie3]

Chris3875, on Oct 21 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

North opened the bidding 4C, East asked what the bid meant and South said it was Gerber asking for aces. South didn't mention that their agreement was also that it could be a weak hand with a long suit. East passed, South bid 4H showing 1 ace and all passed.

I read "could be" not that "it is"."Could be" is totally different from "it is" and my thoughts remain the same. The opps failed to protect but they certainly had the instincts that something was amiss or a director wouldn't have been called at all. I do have a "hard line" attitude towards players that try to play both sides of an issue. You know, the ones that say we'll let this go in hopes the opps messed themselves up, and if we find we are going to get a bad board, let's call the director and see if we can get redress that way. So, yes, I have little sympathy here. The ethics of the N/S pair is the issue. Depending on the remainder of their agreement for this bid, I can see a penalty for a "failure to disclose". I'm still trying to understand why anyone thinks the E/W pair should be considered for any recompense.

[Chris3875]

The N/S actual agreement is that 4C opening is Gerber asking for aces - it could be a strong hand looking for slam or it could be a weak pre-emptive hand with a long suit. Opener knows which suit s/he wants to play the contract in, but is unsure of the level. They are the only pair in our club that plays this system - and I think it must be a new addition because I have never seen it before. It's a bit like a multi 2D opening that COULD be a weak bid in hearts or spades or COULD be a strong balanced 20-21 pt hand.

I agree that E probably should have doubled the 4C bid - if only to show a lead direction - but after s/he didn't and the bidding went 4H - P - P a double by E now would surely be for penalty (in her partner's mind) - I don't think as her partner I would have bid on. I watched this board being played by the next 6 tables and noticed that 4 of the 6 North players opened 4H straight away - I think E would have acted over that bid knowing that it was weak - a double would have had her partner bidding either spades or clubs and they would have found their contract. This is why I think they were damaged.

I find this area of directing really difficult - I haven't been playing long myself and got pushed into this role because no-one else wanted it - I've been working as a caddy/director with 3 of the top TD's here (you would probably know them David - Martin Willcox, Laurie Kelso and Sean Mullamphy) but when I see the different responses from experienced directors here I wonder whether I will ever learn.

I've been reading all the posts and can see merit in them all - how to make that final decision is the big question for me.

[bluejak]

Sadie3, on Oct 23 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

I read "could be"  not that "it is"."Could be" is totally different from "it is"  and my thoughts remain the same.  The opps failed to protect but they certainly had the instincts that something was amiss or a director wouldn't have been called at all.  I do have a "hard line" attitude towards players that try to play both sides of an issue.  You know, the ones that say we'll let this go in hopes the opps messed themselves up, and if we find we are going to get a bad board, let's call the director and see if we can get redress that way.  So, yes, I have little sympathy here.  The ethics of the N/S pair is the issue.  Depending on the remainder of their agreement for this bid, I can see a penalty for a "failure to disclose".  I'm still trying to understand why anyone thinks the E/W pair should be considered for any recompense.

Because they were not the ones who did something wrong. Their opponents play it "could be" something very unusual, and you expect a poor pair to get it right.

When players fail to follow the Laws of the game, why penalise their opponents? Why are your sympathies with the law-breakers not the sufferers?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

EBU White book 2010 said:

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.  This also applies to potentially wild or gambling actions.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’
• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

You do not consider passing on east's hand throughout "blatantly ridiculous"? What would he need, a 32 count? Is he not required to notice his lho has shown an ace as well, making his RHO even weaker? I think this goes beyond a 'beginners error' personally.

To put it another way, taking the last statement and applying it to bidding instead of play, I do not think passing with the east hand has a reasonable chance of success.

Btw, what you call "blaming the victim" I call "personal responsibility". It's interesting that you think there is too much of it in America. I think it's a trait we could use a lot more of. Why do you think there are so many lawsuits here?

[peachy]

Chris3875, on Oct 22 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

--- but when I see the different responses from experienced directors here I wonder whether I will ever learn.

You are learning.
However, not all the posters here are experienced directors. For your guidance, look for answers from those who you know to be experienced TDs.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

EBU White book 2010 said:

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

Also very well, but that is obviously a specific EBU interpretation, whereas most of the discussion in this thread applies outside EBU, i.e., only reading the WBF Laws (12C1b in particular) and possibly existing local interpretations.

[Sadie3]

Ok Bluejak, you win. A player with 20 HCP that has two opportunities to get into an auction (one of them in the pass out seat) fails to do so and should be recompensed for his failure to figure out something rotten was going on.

[blackshoe]

You know, if I had a dollar for every time I didn't figure out something at the bridge table that would be intuitively obvious to all you experts, I could probably be comfortable playing head to head table stakes poker with Bill Gates.

[suprgrover]

Sadie3, on Oct 23 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Ok Bluejak, you win. A player with 20 HCP that has two opportunities to get into an auction (one of them in the pass out seat) fails to do so and should be recompensed for his failure to figure out something rotten was going on.

Does any jurisdiction equate cowardice (that might sometimes be justified) as a "serious error"? I do note that E-W went plus against 4♥ but would go down in 4♠. Exchanging the ♠2 and ♣5 would cause 5♣ to do down, as well. I would hardly consider passing here an error, let alone a serious one.

[bluejak]

duschek, on Oct 23 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

EBU White book 2010 said:

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

Also very well, but that is obviously a specific EBU interpretation, whereas most of the discussion in this thread applies outside EBU, i.e., only reading the WBF Laws (12C1b in particular) and possibly existing local interpretations.

While this is true, remember what we are doing here. We are trying to help people rule. Now, given the following sources:

• Players with little or no directing experience giving personal opinions
  
• Junior Directors with some directing experience giving personal opinions
  
• Senior Directors with directing experience and knowledge giving personal opinions
  
• Official opinions from knowledgeable authorities
  
• Official WBFLC opinions

it is not immediately obvious that the fourth one in the list is the least useful.

[bluejak]

I think you should remember that players have instincts. And one of those instincts among medium or less players is to pass throughout once the opposition show strength - with any hand. It may not be a good instinct, but it is there. Of course, it would be nice to teach such players to play better, but that is impractical.

It just seems to me that taking advantage of that instinct illegally should lead to redress.